I've googled this phrase in the hopes of understanding what the phrase actually means, to no avail. So, I'm asking for your help, bros.

What does it mean for a country to not negotiate with terrorists? Because I genuinely have no idea.

Also, regardless of whether countries actually stick to that credo, what do you think of that philosophy? Good? Bad? Etc.? Is it right, is it wrong? I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say.

It's not about reciprocation, it's just all about me,
a sycophantic, prophetic, Socratic junkie wannabe.
- The 1975, "The Sound"

At 7/28/2012 3:59:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:I've googled this phrase in the hopes of understanding what the phrase actually means, to no avail. So, I'm asking for your help, bros.

What does it mean for a country to not negotiate with terrorists? Because I genuinely have no idea.

Also, regardless of whether countries actually stick to that credo, what do you think of that philosophy? Good? Bad? Etc.? Is it right, is it wrong? I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say.

It means if terrorists have hostages, and demand we supply them with arms in exchange for their release; we won't negotiate a deal with them, instead we will launch a rescue mission. The reason being is that if we negotiate with them, they would go out of their way to gain bargaining chips for future negotiations. If we negotiate with them, it emboldens them. If we don't they are backed into a corner and must fight or perish.

"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle

There's a difference between talking to someone who is a terrorist and making deals with someone due to their use or threat of using terrorism.

Non-military right wingers tend not to see a difference. The ones in the military know that the reason the Surge worked was through a comprehensive cease fire agreement with at the time active (Sadr's JAM) and former (1920s Brigade) terrorist groups.

At 7/28/2012 3:59:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:What does it mean for a country to not negotiate with terrorists?

The simple case of it: If you take hostages, that country (or corporation or other organization) will not consider any ransom or other demands for release. The idea is, with this policy announced beforehand, if credible, there is no incentive to take hostages.

More generally-- anyone that country labels "terrorist" shall have no discussions of any sort with state actors except when captured in the interrogation room/ on trial, that sort of thing. Often a false claim, such as Israel negotiating the Oslo accords despite such a policy.

The first version makes a great deal of sense, the second not so much, and the history of lack of credibility even more so.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 7/28/2012 3:59:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:I've googled this phrase in the hopes of understanding what the phrase actually means, to no avail. So, I'm asking for your help, bros.

What does it mean for a country to not negotiate with terrorists? Because I genuinely have no idea.

Also, regardless of whether countries actually stick to that credo, what do you think of that philosophy? Good? Bad? Etc.? Is it right, is it wrong? I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say.

First and foremost it's not true. At all. The American government has a schizophrenic foreign policy. It supported Saddam and shook his hand during his most violent massacres before it decided Saddam had to be removed from power and murdered. Same with Qaddafi who shook Obama's hand in 2009 and who Bush described as a leading ally in the war on terror. If you're referring to actual terrorist organizations, the same applies - the US govt supports terrorist organizations when it is convenient for it to do so. Sometimes it even props them up.

Then take the Contras, who Reagan said were the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers. Systematically, the Contras would assassinate religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. Estimated civilian deaths: over 13,000 people.

Take Chile:

"The violent overthrow of the democratically-elected Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende changed the course of the country ... Revelations that President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to 'make the economy scream' in Chile to 'prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him,' prompted a major scandal in the mid-1970s, and a major investigation by the U.S. Senate." (This is a case of the American government engaging in terrorism).

Take Vietnam:

Between 1967 to 1973 an estimated 40,000 Vietnamese were killed by CIA-sponsored "counterterror" and "hunter-killer" teams, and hundreds of thousands were sent to secret interrogation centers. Estimated total civilian deaths: 2,500,000 - 3,500,000 people.

The United States was accused of being a state sponsor of terrorism for their support of Cuban exiles Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. [92] The US also supported Afgan Mujahideen as part of the Reagan Doctrine, which arguably contributed to the creation of Al-Qaeda.

If you define terrorism as the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political or religious aims - which is exactly what the 9/11 attacks were - the United States government is guilty of terrorism which has led directly to the deaths of millions of innocent people. U.S. support for terrorists and actual U.S. terrorist actions are deeply routed within the country's history.

After posting my previous post I realized that it was pretty irrelevant to your question, and I apologize for that.

It's still very related though, because the U.S. not only has a history of negotiating with and supporting terrorists (some of whom the U.S. govt would later label terrorists and try to kill) and engaging in terrorism - by any definition of the word.